And why 40+? Seems like a lot, particularly with regard to players of the '70s and '80s who didn't get to play about four thousand ODIs each.

17-08-2011, 10:37 AM

Bun

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sean

And why 40+? Seems like a lot, particularly with regard to players of the '70s and '80s who didn't get to play about four thousand ODIs each.

bad luck to them then.

people preceding 1860 didn't get to play a single test match either.

17-08-2011, 10:43 AM

Himannv

Lol @ Vaas being the worst at this.

17-08-2011, 10:52 AM

weldone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bun

bad luck to them then.

people preceding 1860 didn't get to play a single test match either.

Nah, 40 fifty plus scores is very high for a cut-off point for a sample size even for some of the recent players. Likes of Hussey-Pietersen-De Villiers-Dilshan-Amla-Gambhir-Kohli-etc hasn't yet achieved that, although they're good-to-great ODI batsmen already.

'Minimum sample size to be judged' and 'minimum sample size to gain some points for longevity' are different points. We can say that Hussey or Pietersen aren't as great ODI batsmen as Ponting because Ponting has played much more, but we can't say that Hussey or Pietersen can't be judged on the basis of their ODI performances because they haven't played enough (which surely they have). These are two different things.

And let's not bring Abbas and other previous years' greats into the debate, because that's the subject matter of a different debate - whether to measure longevity by no. of matches or by no. of years...

17-08-2011, 11:30 AM

Indusriver

Yeah true, i think the minimum factor should be atleast (50 innings) played to judge them, also we should do it by innings played not by matches played

17-08-2011, 11:46 AM

Prince EWS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indusriver

Yeah true, i think the minimum factor should be atleast (50 innings) played to judge them, also we should do it by innings played not by matches played

I did it by innings. Here's a list with a qualification of at least 50 innings:

^ nice, i really thought guys like inzamam and Arvinda would have been more consistent in scoring 50+ scores then that. It almost seems like they scored 50+ scores in every other match but apprantly not